You appear to be highly motivated to deny the resurrection.If there is clear evidence of an event, then it qualifies as history.
If there is no such evidence, it is not history.
Preferences don't count in this determination.
You appear to be highly motivated to deny the resurrection.If there is clear evidence of an event, then it qualifies as history.
If there is no such evidence, it is not history.
Preferences don't count in this determination.
You do understand that its existence is not clear to us, right?On the other hand, not honoring the God Who clearly exists makes no sense either
And that we don't see the universe as a creation?and so you have the challenge Creation offers
The stupidest possible reason for believing that a thing did happen.You cannot say with any surety that is did not happen.
If.If it did happen then it a historical event.
To educate Vibise and other, historians do have disagreements.How many history books include that as fact?
How has this been substantiated outside of the bible?
Your motivation is part of the equation.You do understand that its existence is not clear to us, right?
And that we don't see the universe as a creation?
Why assume motivation?Your motivation is part of the equation.
It is always part of the equation.Why assume motivation?
Based on...?It is always part of the equation.
Based on...?
I don't see the universe as a creation, and my wants have nothing to do with it.
Don't believe me?
Don't care.
Bringing out your crystal ball again?i have interacted with you for several months, and your wants are very evident.. It is just human nature.
Yes they do, and, as your link notes, there is some disagreement as to whether Jesus was a real, historical figure, and beyond that, whether various aspects of his life are historical, like his baptism and crucifiction. I do not think historians are arguing about the resurrection, as that is clearly a matter of faith that is outside the ability of historians to assess.To educate Vibise and other, historians do have disagreements.
Category:Historical controversies - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Re your last sentence. You admit you are guessing. And as I have you have not proven that the resurrection could not happen.Yes they do, and, as your link notes, there is some disagreement as to whether Jesus was a real, historical figure, and beyond that, whether various aspects of his life are historical, like his baptism and crucifiction. I do not think historians are arguing about the resurrection, as that is clearly a matter of faith that is outside the ability of historians to assess.
I am not guessing. There is no historical evidence of the resurrection.Re your last sentence. You admit you are guessing. And as I have you have not proven that the resurrection could not happen.
You constantly judge people as well, beyond what they say.Bringing out your crystal ball again?
Have you noticed that it is defective?
The tomb is empty, the body has never been found.I am not guessing. There is no historical evidence of the resurrection.
The leaders of the time could have produced the body and ended the whole thing right there.I am not guessing. There is no historical evidence of the resurrection.
Since you were not a first hand witness, you are indeed guessing.I am not guessing. There is no historical evidence of the resurrection.
If you would meet someone in line in the grocery store, and he told you he was the third son of King Charles, would you be inclined to be him? If not, why not?Bringing out your crystal ball again?
Have you noticed that it is defective?
Believe himIf you would meet someone in line in the grocery store, and he told you he was the third son of King Charles, would you be inclined to be him? If not, why not?
You are talking about a bible story told in all 4 Gospels, but no two tell the same story.Since you were not a first hand witness, you are indeed guessing.
Do you claim to have perfect knowledge of what happened thay day?
Why are you so opposed to the idea of a resurrection?